Your Guiding Light Through The Progressive Fog

Archive

Monthly Archives: March 2015

A storm is brewing, and only viable candidate the Democrat Party has for 2016, Hilary Clinton, is running out of ports to hide in. As we should all be aware of by now, while serving as Secretary of State Mrs. Clinton felt herself above everyone else in the State Department, and did not really think that the rules applied to her, so she had her own emails on her own email server. Well this scandal now threatens to bring and end to the former Secretary of State’s presidential aspirations.

As we are well aware, Hilary Clinton is neck deep in the scandal involving the September 11 terrorist attacks in Benghazi. In case you are not, on September 11, 2012 the United States consulate in Benghazi Libya fell victim to an organized terrorist assault. September 12, 2012, the State Department set about lying to the American People claiming that it was a spontaneous protest about some video that no one had seen, that went wrong. You know because every spontaneous protest has RPG’s and trained military precision. The United States Ambassador was killed, as well as three other brave Americans who fought to defend the consulate. There was a call for air support, one that never came. These people were left to die. The Obama Administration moved quickly to cover up the scandal, so that President Obama could continue to claim terrorism was dead and Al Qaeda was on the run.

The Benghazi cover up though is not what this post is about. I am not hear to rehash the debate about Benghazi, progressives think that it is a witch hunt, conservatives want to know who pushed the cover up story. I am not here to talk about that, I am here to talk about the rule of law, and how Hilary Clinton continues to think that she is above it. The law is the law, and no one is above it. That is what I am here to discuss. That is the purpose of this post.

Representative Trey Gowdy, Chairman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi, issued a subpena for Hilary Clinton’s private server, stating “Without access to Secretary Clinton’s personal server, there is no way for the State Department to know it has acquired all documents that should be made public, and given State’s delay in disclosing the fact Secretary Clinton exclusively used personal email to conduct State business, there is no way to accept State’s or Secretary Clinton’s certification she has turned over all documents that rightfully belong to the American people.” Representative Gowdy then stated, “That is why I see no choice but for Secretary Clinton to turn her server over to a neutral, detached third-party arbiter who can determine which documents should be public and which should remain private. Secretary Clinton alone created this predicament, but she alone does not get to determine its outcome.”

Representative Gowdy is right. Secretary Clinton acted outside the regularly established rules, and took it upon herself to create a private server. Lets all be honest with one another, there can be no doubt that she did this to protect herself politically. Whether you think she was allowed to or not, that was the real reason behind it. She created this scandal, and she must face the consequences. She is not above the law.

So on March 4th, 2015 a subpena was issued for all of Secretary Clinton’s emails from her personal server. As we all know the scandal ridden Obama Administration always drags its feet in regards to fulfilling subpenas or freedom of information act request. Secretary Clinton is no different. She filed a two week extension which pushed the deadline for her to turn over the emails from March 13th, to March 27.

Well the big day has come and gone, March 27th, 2015, Hilary Clinton’s day of reckoning. Trey Gowdy had this to say about the situation, “We learned today, from her attorney, Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server”. Yup, former Secretary Clinton wiped her server clean. She felt that she alone had the power to determine what was a personal email, and what was a mater of public record. She ensured that she could not be held to account for what was on that server. She made sure that no one would be able to act as a check against her rampant corruption.

The problem now is that Hilary Clinton has destroyed the evidence. She has destroyed that history, that knowledge. The evidence that could have proved that she was innocent of the charges filed against her. Or the evidence that would have proved her negligence in the months leading up to the Benghazi Terrorist Attack, as well as her role in the cover up. She could be guilty of destroying information that is a matter of public record. We will never know, because she deleted it. All we have to go off of is Mrs. Clinton’s word that she handed over all of her “work related” emails. Would you trust George Bush if he said he turned over all the emails? Even Nixon eventually handed over the taps, but Hilary can’t she destroyed them. What does that say about Mrs. Clinton?

I really wish I could say that I am surprised, but I’m not, and I am really getting tired of having to say that. Every scandal to come out of the Obama Administration is met by some administration official stonewalling the investigation, or a horrible accident resulting in the lose of electronically stored information. This is just par for the course, for the most corrupt administration in American History.

I do not understand why people are not more upset about the mater. I do not understand why Democrats are not enraged that their front runner, their only hope for the White House in 2016, has betrayed them. Why are news crews not hounding her, demanding to know where the emails are? Why are reporters not demanding to know why she cleared the server? Why is she not facing criminal charges? Any rational individual knows that main stream media is biased towards the Democrat Party, it is not some big secret. Now progressives will try and act as though the bias doesn’t exist, and the only biased news network is Fox. In reality though, the truth is very obvious, and this case proves it. The fact that the media barely covered the Benghazi story when it first broke, the fact that they did not let the fact that President Obama’s Administration lied about the attack see the light of day, and the fact that they are not camped out in front of Secretary Clinton’s house proves it.

If this had been a Republican, if Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mitt Romney, or Trey Gowdy had done this, the media would be all over them. They would not get a moments rest. The media would make sure the public knew about the criminal action, and would have been an active force in demanding the truth. RIGHTLY SO! That is how it should be. The media should be critical of government officials, they should question them, and their intentions. But for some reason, they never question progressives when they break the law.

So I guess I was wrong when I said that Hilary Clinton was in trouble. The media will do nothing to push the story, in fact they will rally to Mrs. Clinton’s defense, and claim this to be a witch hunt. She will be given a free pass, after all she is a Clinton, the law does not apply to them. We have suffered through six years of a President who acts as though he is above the law. Do you really want a President who destroys evidence, who denies the American Public access to the truth? Do we really need a President who believes herself to be above the rule of law?

You can disagree with me on my political beliefs, that is fine, in fact hardy debate only serves to make us stronger. But there can be no debating that what Secretary Clinton did was wrong, and had she been a Republican would have automatically disqualified her from ever being President.

The Cruz has set sail. Texas Senator Ted Cruz announced Monday that he is officially running for President of the United States. This was met with cheers from conservatives, and predictably nothing but outrage and mockery from the progressives in the GOP Establishment, the Democrat Party, and of course in the media. What should we take away from this announcement, what should we expect going forward, and does Ted Cruz have what it takes to win the White House.

To begin, Ted Cruz made a phenomenal speech to launch his Presidential bid. He delivered an impassioned speech, that fired up the crowd. He spoke from the heart, and delivered a speech devoid of stuttering or losing his place. He did all of this without the use of a teleprompter. Why is this important, why does his ability to speak so eloquently without the use of a prompter so important? There are several reasons. Primarily it shows us that Ted Cruz is not just up there regurgitating some speech mathematically designed to appeal to all sides. His ability to articulate his thoughts and beliefs without a prompter shows us that he is speaking from the heart, he is saying what he actually believes. He has a firm grasp on the issues, and knows just how he feels about them. This is hugely important in the up coming blood bath in 2016. Ted Cruz has shown that he is able to articulate his view points without the use a prompter, which means that he actually understands them. He is not just blowing smoke, he is not the product of a hundred different consultants forging a view point. He is far less likely to slip, make a mistake, to open himself up to controversy. A clear example would be the last GOP nominee, I believe he was the establishment candidate, Mitt Romney, and his 47% remark. Yes it was taken out of context, but it doesn’t matter it hurt him in the polls and allowed Barack Obama another four years to implement his radical agenda.

Its funny though, I do like how the media has responded to Ted Cruz’s speech, pure and utter shock. No man is supposed to be able to speak that long, that fluently, and do so without a prompter. Perhaps they are worried because his mastery of the English language and understanding of his conservative views will not make him gaff prone as the “front runner” Jeb Bush. Or maybe the reason they are so worried is that Ted Cruz is actually a fantastic speaker, he is what President Obama pretends to be. He can actually deliver an exciting and impassioned speech, not just read one. (Of course I could easily see this as becoming an progressive argument against the Senator. I could see them arguing that Ted Cruz is so stupid he can’t read.

Progressives are worried about Ted Cruz running for President, they know that he is a real threat to Hilary Clinton’s candidacy. Establishment Republicans do not want Ted Cruz to win, because it would spell the end of their iron clad grip on the party. JEB Bush is a party man, he is the guy who will tow the party line, he won’t threaten the GOP’s spineless lilly-livered idealogy that delivered President Obama the Presidency in both 2008 and 2012.

When people like Peter King are mocking Ted Cruz, you know he is a viable candidate. When progressives push Jeb Bush and call Ted Cruz and second tier candidate, you know he is the one that they do not want to run. Ted Cruz can unite the GOP, Ted Cruz can articulate the concepts of Conservationism, Ted Cruz can win the Presidency. The first viable candidate has entered the 2016 race.

Because of this, Ted Cruz will have his family destroyed, his reputation assaulted, and of course he will be portrayed as a moron. They will try and make a big deal out of the fact that, while he is a natural born US Citizen, he was not born in the United States. They will ignore that both of his Parents are United States Citizens, thus making him a natural born US Citizen eligible to run for the office of President of the United States. Of course, they could just be attacking him because he is of Hispanic decent. I know Whoopi Goldberg has already made incendiary remarks towards that end. They will also point out that he has only been in the Senate a Senator for a short time, and has no real executive experience. Ironic, everything that disqualifies Ted Cruz, they once served as qualifications for Barack Obama.

Of course there are differences between two. Ted Cruz for example has done more in his short time in the Senate that President Obama. During his time in the Senate President Obama missed 24.2% of the votes, by contrast Senator Ted Cruz has only missed 8.2%. Senator Cruz appears proud of his academic success at Harvard, while we are not allowed to know about President Obama’s. Ted Cruz does not have a record of voting “Present” in order to avoid difficult issues.

Ultimately the greatest sign that Ted Cruz is a viable presidential candidate is the fact that the media is trying to brush him off. They do not want him to win the nomination because they know that he can unite the Conservative Base of the GOP, inspire them to turn out in big numbers, and ultimately win the White House. People who want Jeb Bush to run, will vote for Cruz just because he is the GOP nominee.

GOOD NEWS EVERYONE! Harry Reid has decided not to run for re-election. So not only will 2016 mean that President Obama will no longer be in the White House, but we will be rid of Harry Reid as well. I wish him all the luck in the world. He leaves behind a legacy of shame. His bitter partisanship led to the neutering of the Senate and thus the entire legislative body of the United States federal government. In order to protect the President, and save vulnerable Democrats in the Senate, he refused to allow bills to come to a vote in the Senate. November 3rd, 2010 Harry Reid shut the Senate down, refusing to allow bills passed in the House to see the light of day in the Senate. This bitter small minded partisan politics gutted the legislative branch, and did nearly irreparable damage to the separation of powers that has protected out liberty for over 200 years.

Harry Reid legacy will be one of bitter hatred, and failure. He shut down the Senate to save President Obama from having to use the Veto Power, and to prevent Democrats from having to make controversial votes. He failed to protect the President’s agenda or reputation, and he failed to protect Democrat Senators.

Good Luck Senator Reid, maybe by returning to Nevada you will remember what it means to represent the will of the people. Maybe you will remember who it was your worked for.

1000 Views who would believe it. Thank you to everyone who reads this blog, and to all those who comment. Your comments provide the stimulating conversation necessary to preserve a free Republic. They also make blogging interesting.

I keep hearing about how ” the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias, not an individual right.” This statement is wrong, and based on a lack of historical knowledge.

The 2nd Amendment has a preamble, the “well regulated militia” is just one reason for the amendment, it does not define the amendment.

Preambles exists in more than just amendments, for example, a preamble does not limit a claim on a patent. The preamble of the Constitution does not act to limit the scope of the document. It was common practice that when laws were passed you would cite a reason for having them.

When looking at the 2nd amendment you have to remember when it was written. There is a book titled Cardinal Rules of Legal Interpretation, By Edward Beal. It deals with the concepts of English law from 1762 through 1908. On page 252, Beal writes
“A preamble of a statute is a recital of some inconveniences for which a remedy is given.

“There was a time when statutes were made without preambles; and the preamble of a statute is no more than a recital of some inconveniences, which does not exclude any other, for which a remedy is given by the enacting part of the statute.” — 7 Bac. Abr. Statute (I.)2.
Enacting Part and Preamble.
The preamble may sometimes be usefully looked at as a guide to ascertain the subject-matter, scope and object of the statute.
Where the enacting part is clear and unambiguous, the preamble cannot be resorted to to control, cut down or restrict it.
Where the enacting part is ambiguous, the preamble can be resorted to explain it.”
the enacting part, the actual amendment, seems pretty clear.
This was further enforced in the 2008 case District of Columbia vs. Heller, The Supreme Court held (the following comes from the syllabus prepared by the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions)
The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22

Lets use a little common sense. The founders had just won independence from Britain, they were able to do so because they had the firearms. Would they really limit the peoples right to bear arms to just the “militia”?

I would also like to point out that “well regulated” back then did not mean lots of government laws and rules, it meant trained and disciplined.

So if you where to right the Amendment today it would probably read.

“The right of the people to own and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This right has been protected for many reasons, such as, but not limited too, a well trained militia is essential to the sustained security of the United States.”

So to sum it up, the 2nd Amendment does protect an individual right. End of story. To change that, would require a new amendment.

Josh Ernest announced Monday, “The president certainly has not indicated any reticence about using his executive authority to try to advance an agenda that benefits middle-class Americans” he then went on to say “This is related to the president’s ability to use his executive authority to do what he thinks is the right thing for the country. The fact is, we haven’t seen a lot of efficient production out of Congress over the last couple of months.” No Mr. Ernest the fact is that President Obama does not have the power to just act unilaterally without the authorization of congress. He can’t just decide that congress has failed, so he will do what he wants. He does not have that power.

I have read Article II of the United States Constitution Article II, for those of you who are unaware (Mr. President you might want to pay attention), outlines the powers of the Executive office. Weirdly nowhere in those powers was there anything about the President being able to change laws, on his own.I then read the amendments made to the Constitutions, and what I found was interesting.The 16th Amendment ratified on February 3, 1913 states,

“The Congress shall have power to la and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

I do not see anywhere in that amendment where the President was given power to change the tax code. The executive was not even mentioned. Actually it very much sounds as though the Executive Branch has nothing to do with determining the tax rates. It sounds as though congress does. The President’s only real way of changing the rates would be to veto legislation from congress sent to his desk. So in fact Mr. Ernest President Obama does not have the power to change the tax code by himself. He does not have the power to close loopholes on his own, he cannot just wave his magic wand and tax people into oblivion. He cannot use the tax code as a weapon against his political enemy. He cannot punish people with the tax code.

The tax code does need to be reformed, the problem is though that President Obama does not want reform. When President Obama says “tax reform” what he means is increasing taxes. He wants more taxes, he wants people to have to pay more towards the government. He wants to level the playing field by crushing those on top, and leaving the poor begging for scraps.

There is no chance for Tax Reform under President Obama because he will not compromise, he will not act within the confines of the law. He will not compromise his radical agenda, for the benefit of the American People.